🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1016@its63b.ed.ac.uk> cstjc@itspna.ed.ac.uk (A Cunnigham) writes:
>	CS1 courses exist to teach people about computer science. They are
>  not in general service courses for other departments. 

What makes you think that good programming techniques are going to be
any different when found in physicists, say, than when found in
computer scientists?  Programming is a SKILL, not a science.  You use
"computer science" as though it is some higher religion that is
defiled by teaching it to heathens, unbelievers, or people from
other departments.

>>  [...] It would be nice if a physicist (for example) could stick 
>>  primarily to physics and not have to learn a second discipline (computer 
>>  science).  

Yes, but if a scientist is going to use a tool, like a computer, it
would be a good idea to learn how to use it, to gain some skill at it.
Programming is a skill, and one that sometimes requires cleverness and
artfulness, and is often difficult.  The requirment of programming for 
scientists is unlikely to disappear.  Again, let's not confuse the art 
of programming with science.

>  Computer Science most certainly IS NOT engineering. If anything it's a 
>  branch of mathematics.

Then your computer science is different from the one I see.  The bulk
of what people call computer science is people designing and building
new operating systems, compilers, expert systems, hardware, languages,
communication networks, and so on.  This is *engineering*, just as
building circuits, bridges, houses, motor assemblies, turbofan blades,
etc. is.  There is no *science* being done in these applied areas, even
though the application may further knowledge in the field.  This is the
difference between science and technology.  Scientists deal in science,
engineers in technology.  Most so-called computer scientists think of
themselves as scientists when writing systems, operating or expert, but
they are wrong.  The science of computers is the less-popular theory --
the study of things like computability, decidability, and algorithms.
The bulk of CS, as it is generally talked about, is engineering --
designing, working out practical problems, implementing, etc.  It most
certainly *is not* like mathematics.  We delude ourself if we somehow
think that what we're doing is somehow more akin to what chemists and
biologists do that what {chemical, mechanical, electrical, ...} engineers 
do.

>   pcm> [ ... ]  I have just changed jobs.  In no interview was I asked
>   pcm> whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C.
>
>>  [...] I used to list ML on my resume as one of the programming languages 
>>  I know.  I finally removed it because (1) nobody had ever heard of it, 
>>  and (2) when I explained what it was, they didn't care.
>
>   If they don't care then they ain't worth working for!

Anthony is clearly not going to get a job in the US.  There are maybe a
half-dozen employers in the states who will ask or care about obsurities
like ML or Snobol, unless the job specifically pertains to these
languages.  I don't claim this is right, but among the ones who do not 
are quite a few that are well worth working for.

>nevin1> Learn the good programming habits first

YES YES YES YES YES 
(See, I learned my lesson at the School of Power Posting. :-) )

>>   Lucky for me, though, I know ML and Prolog, so if I ever have to your
>>   planet, I'll be able to get a job ;-).
>
>    Stay off my planet - I like it the way it is!

Let's be nice, eh?  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Eunice                 ARPA:  jonathan%pitt@relay.cs.net
University of Pittsburgh               jonathan%pitt@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu
Dept of Computer Science        UUCP:  jonathan@pitt.UUCP
(412) 624-8836                BITNET:  jonathan@pittvms.BITNET